Interesting research from the US is shedding doubt on whether podcasting is really a lasting phenomenon or just another fad.
The survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found 12% of US people online had downloaded a podcast, compared to earlier research this year that showed only 7% had taken the step. However, just 1% of respondents said that they would download a podcast on a typical day.
Podcasting has got a lot of media attention lately - Ricky Gervais etc - and it might be worth having a bit of a reality check to see just how much is hype and how much is substance.
Video will undoubtedly play an important part in the next evolution of the Internet and interactivity, but whether podcasting will remain in Vogue is debatable as IPTV. Mobile TV and other on-demand TV style services develop.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Show Me The Money
The NTL / ITV deal seems quite strange on the face of it and has confused a lot of analysts over the past week who have struggled to see the value in the deal.
Why would NTL, with debts of around £6bn already, want to take on a channel whose advertising revenues seem to be in terminal decline?
The answer seems to be Coronation Street and Emmerdale - namely the content production arm of ITV and the rights it owns.
It came as a bit of a surprise to me that ITV makes 65% of its own content and it is this that NTL wants to exploit, most likely through lucrative IPTV and video on demand services.
Having access to content such as all of the Coronation Street back catalogue will be valuable if it can be exploited properly and it will also possibly drive uptake of cable services, which are in decline at present as Sky’s dominance of the pay TV market continues.
The fact that a major broadcaster such as ITV can be the subject of takeover talk merely on the back of its content production, rather than its advertising model and revenues, is a clear indication of where NTL sees the value in the future.
Content was king once before in the dot com boom and with video becoming ever more visible online, it is set to be crowned again.
Why would NTL, with debts of around £6bn already, want to take on a channel whose advertising revenues seem to be in terminal decline?
The answer seems to be Coronation Street and Emmerdale - namely the content production arm of ITV and the rights it owns.
It came as a bit of a surprise to me that ITV makes 65% of its own content and it is this that NTL wants to exploit, most likely through lucrative IPTV and video on demand services.
Having access to content such as all of the Coronation Street back catalogue will be valuable if it can be exploited properly and it will also possibly drive uptake of cable services, which are in decline at present as Sky’s dominance of the pay TV market continues.
The fact that a major broadcaster such as ITV can be the subject of takeover talk merely on the back of its content production, rather than its advertising model and revenues, is a clear indication of where NTL sees the value in the future.
Content was king once before in the dot com boom and with video becoming ever more visible online, it is set to be crowned again.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
$1.65bn - What a Bargain
Google’s purchase of You Tube is a snip at the $1.65bn asking price.
The true value of a video sharing site like You Tube has not been realised yet and Google has been wise to move in and snap up the best player in the market before one of its rivals did.
If you want to buy a social network site now you have missed the boat. Rupert Murdoch paid a handsome sum for MySpace and anyone who follows will find the market highly inflated because of this.
The purchase does suggest that Google Video has not exactly been setting the world on fire and Google has pretty much admitted this by coughing up to buy You Tube. But when looking at the $1.65bn price tag take into account what Google has bought - in an all share deal, so not even for any hard cash.
More than 100m clips are viewed on You Tube every day - that is a lot of eyeballs. The beauty of the site is its community feel and if Google can harness that, whilst overlaying a revenue model such as its highly successful adWords programme or a similar model, then £900m odd is going to look like a wise investment very quickly.
The deal also pushes Google into the video market, taking it beyond its traditional roots. As a forward looking company Google must realise that text is only a stop-gap online and being at the forefront of the video revolution will only maintain its market dominance. The search giant is keen to offer its advertisers more than just text ads and this purchase if handled correctly, will allow Google to do just this.
Google does face some hurdles and comparisons have already been made between You Tube and Napster in the early days of music online. The difference is that the TV and film industry has witnessed the distress that was caused to the music industry as it resisted technological change rather than embracing it. You Tube has already struck licensing deals with numerous entertainment companies such as Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group to allow people to watch videos on the site and advertising deals will not be far away.
The test of the deal be how Google handles the company that it has just bought. Murdoch is realising that buying a social network and being lauded as forward thinking is easy, but integrating it into a commercial organisation is a very different game. I feel that Google is going to have much less trouble with You Tube, especially as the public is used to video content carrying ads and its competitors such as MSN and Yahoo! can only be fuming at today’s news and wishing their pockets were as deep as Larry and Sergey’s.
The true value of a video sharing site like You Tube has not been realised yet and Google has been wise to move in and snap up the best player in the market before one of its rivals did.
If you want to buy a social network site now you have missed the boat. Rupert Murdoch paid a handsome sum for MySpace and anyone who follows will find the market highly inflated because of this.
The purchase does suggest that Google Video has not exactly been setting the world on fire and Google has pretty much admitted this by coughing up to buy You Tube. But when looking at the $1.65bn price tag take into account what Google has bought - in an all share deal, so not even for any hard cash.
More than 100m clips are viewed on You Tube every day - that is a lot of eyeballs. The beauty of the site is its community feel and if Google can harness that, whilst overlaying a revenue model such as its highly successful adWords programme or a similar model, then £900m odd is going to look like a wise investment very quickly.
The deal also pushes Google into the video market, taking it beyond its traditional roots. As a forward looking company Google must realise that text is only a stop-gap online and being at the forefront of the video revolution will only maintain its market dominance. The search giant is keen to offer its advertisers more than just text ads and this purchase if handled correctly, will allow Google to do just this.
Google does face some hurdles and comparisons have already been made between You Tube and Napster in the early days of music online. The difference is that the TV and film industry has witnessed the distress that was caused to the music industry as it resisted technological change rather than embracing it. You Tube has already struck licensing deals with numerous entertainment companies such as Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group to allow people to watch videos on the site and advertising deals will not be far away.
The test of the deal be how Google handles the company that it has just bought. Murdoch is realising that buying a social network and being lauded as forward thinking is easy, but integrating it into a commercial organisation is a very different game. I feel that Google is going to have much less trouble with You Tube, especially as the public is used to video content carrying ads and its competitors such as MSN and Yahoo! can only be fuming at today’s news and wishing their pockets were as deep as Larry and Sergey’s.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
A 3G Chritmas at Last?
Following on from yesterdays post about the mobile Internet, it is interesting to read on Reuters this morning that Vodafone is to supply the UK market with own-branded low cost 3G handsets.
The company has struck the deal with a Chinese manufacturer to supply the handsets, which will be customised to provide access to Vodafone’s 3G offering.
It’s an interesting solution to the problem of increasing the penetration of 3G phones in the UK and will no doubt be accompanied by a raft of cheap tariffs to get people to adopt 3G services.
I wonder if they will get them to market before Christmas?
The company has struck the deal with a Chinese manufacturer to supply the handsets, which will be customised to provide access to Vodafone’s 3G offering.
It’s an interesting solution to the problem of increasing the penetration of 3G phones in the UK and will no doubt be accompanied by a raft of cheap tariffs to get people to adopt 3G services.
I wonder if they will get them to market before Christmas?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Will .Mobi Make Any Difference?
Brands have until 3pm today to register their own .mobi domain names before the cyber-squatters move in.
The new domain name is being touted as one of the drivers for the mobile Internet in the UK, but to be honest I think there are a few more serious issues that need to be overcome first.
Pricing and confidence are the main two.
It is simply too expensive to browse the mobile Internet at present and many consumers are wary of using data services as the charging models are unclear. Operators need to address this problem if the mobile Internet is to take off and if you speak to them they will tell you that they are, because their future business models will require the success of the mobile Internet – but I am not so sure. At the very least the operators seem to be dragging their feet as a move to off-portal services will hit their revenues. Only T-Mobile has a pricing model that seems to fit the bill at the moment – ‘Web ‘n’ Walk’.
Confidence in data services also has to be built up before the mobile Internet will be a big success. WAP has provided a wholly unexciting experience so far for the majority of users and the mobile Internet needs to deliver just what it says – the Internet on a mobile.
That is no mean feat, but until phone data services reach a level where they become useful, relevant and easy to access as well as instilling consumer confidence, the mobile Internet will not flourish whether it has its own domain name or not.
The new domain name is being touted as one of the drivers for the mobile Internet in the UK, but to be honest I think there are a few more serious issues that need to be overcome first.
Pricing and confidence are the main two.
It is simply too expensive to browse the mobile Internet at present and many consumers are wary of using data services as the charging models are unclear. Operators need to address this problem if the mobile Internet is to take off and if you speak to them they will tell you that they are, because their future business models will require the success of the mobile Internet – but I am not so sure. At the very least the operators seem to be dragging their feet as a move to off-portal services will hit their revenues. Only T-Mobile has a pricing model that seems to fit the bill at the moment – ‘Web ‘n’ Walk’.
Confidence in data services also has to be built up before the mobile Internet will be a big success. WAP has provided a wholly unexciting experience so far for the majority of users and the mobile Internet needs to deliver just what it says – the Internet on a mobile.
That is no mean feat, but until phone data services reach a level where they become useful, relevant and easy to access as well as instilling consumer confidence, the mobile Internet will not flourish whether it has its own domain name or not.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Is the End Nigh for MSN?
Microsoft’s new Web 2.0 play – Soapbox – is yet another example of how the software giant is changing its model.
There has been a realisation at Microsoft over the last couple of years that Web services will be the powerful tools in people’s lives for the next decade, just as the PC has been for the previous ten years.
What Microsoft now has to prove is that it is as capable at building market share for services such as Soapbox, as it is in designing PC-based tools. It will also be interesting to see how the software giant manoeuvres its brand in an age when it is becoming more connected with its customers.
The Soapbox service is being launched under the MSN Video brand but increasingly Microsoft is launching Web services under its own brand, bringing into question what will become of MSN.
MSN Search is powered by Windows Live on the MSN.co.uk homepage and a Google search for MSN search brings up the Live Search homepage first. The new search advertising service being offered across MSN Search is part of Microsoft adCenter –which encompasses ad opportunities across the whole of Microsoft.
Soapbox is a purely consumer play and it will be interesting to see what if any Microsoft branding it carries. If Microsoft continues to pursue its new strategy of launching Web services for consumers under its own or the Windows brand it will only be a question of time before the MSN brand comes under serious pressure.
There has been a realisation at Microsoft over the last couple of years that Web services will be the powerful tools in people’s lives for the next decade, just as the PC has been for the previous ten years.
What Microsoft now has to prove is that it is as capable at building market share for services such as Soapbox, as it is in designing PC-based tools. It will also be interesting to see how the software giant manoeuvres its brand in an age when it is becoming more connected with its customers.
The Soapbox service is being launched under the MSN Video brand but increasingly Microsoft is launching Web services under its own brand, bringing into question what will become of MSN.
MSN Search is powered by Windows Live on the MSN.co.uk homepage and a Google search for MSN search brings up the Live Search homepage first. The new search advertising service being offered across MSN Search is part of Microsoft adCenter –which encompasses ad opportunities across the whole of Microsoft.
Soapbox is a purely consumer play and it will be interesting to see what if any Microsoft branding it carries. If Microsoft continues to pursue its new strategy of launching Web services for consumers under its own or the Windows brand it will only be a question of time before the MSN brand comes under serious pressure.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Mystery Solved?
It's been ages since my last post, so apologies, but I have been unbelievably busy with work and have not had the time to empty my mind onto my blog for a while.
Just a quick thought on the MySpace announcement that it will allow unsigned bands to sell their music as downloads. A nice PR story for the social network, and followed by the Arctic Monkey's winning the Mercury Prize I am sure there will be a rush for the service. However, without any kind of DRM, which I am not sure is being added in, and with the record industry finally getting it together with DRM and pay for downloads for more reasonable prices, a deal like this seems a little like a step back.
Yes it may be initially a good source of revenue for unsigned bands, but it will not make the big-boys happy to see such a big site not using DRM and they certainly won't get involved. Still, it might finally put to bed all the questions over whether bands that are 'discovered' on MySpace are already backed by record companies or not.
Just a quick thought on the MySpace announcement that it will allow unsigned bands to sell their music as downloads. A nice PR story for the social network, and followed by the Arctic Monkey's winning the Mercury Prize I am sure there will be a rush for the service. However, without any kind of DRM, which I am not sure is being added in, and with the record industry finally getting it together with DRM and pay for downloads for more reasonable prices, a deal like this seems a little like a step back.
Yes it may be initially a good source of revenue for unsigned bands, but it will not make the big-boys happy to see such a big site not using DRM and they certainly won't get involved. Still, it might finally put to bed all the questions over whether bands that are 'discovered' on MySpace are already backed by record companies or not.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Unscrupulous Actions
Been on holiday recently, so apologies for not blogging for a while.
It was good to see the big boys getting a bashing in the press the other day over their behaviour in China.
Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! were all labeled ‘morally unacceptable’ for blocking information to Chinese users that the Chinese government did not want them to see. Yahoo! in particular came in for special criticism in the report from the Human Rights Watch entitled 'Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship' for handing over end user details to the Chinese government.
Surely there should be some way of stopping this from happening? What are the chances of the US or the UK implementing extra-territorial jurisdiction (making companies or individuals adhere to the law of their origin country wherever they operate in the world) so that companies that are complicit in these acts– that undoubtedly end up with the end user being given more than warm hug by the Chinese government – are prevented from doing so? It applies in the arms trade to stop unscrupulous dealers from circumnavigating trade embargoes and in the information age, where knowledge can be just as potent a weapon, surely there should be some way of protecting a user’s rights?
In the US earlier this year Google defied a White House subpoena to hand over some of its search information, whilst interestingly Yahoo! caved under similar conditions. So there is at least some resistance out there, although I suspect it is more about competitive advantage than anything else.
Will the criticism really make a difference? I fear not. The truth is that the Chinese market is the last big opportunity for these companies to land grab and they will do anything they can to ensure that they pick up as many customers as possible. If that means cowtowing to the Chinese government, then so be it.
It was good to see the big boys getting a bashing in the press the other day over their behaviour in China.
Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! were all labeled ‘morally unacceptable’ for blocking information to Chinese users that the Chinese government did not want them to see. Yahoo! in particular came in for special criticism in the report from the Human Rights Watch entitled 'Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship' for handing over end user details to the Chinese government.
Surely there should be some way of stopping this from happening? What are the chances of the US or the UK implementing extra-territorial jurisdiction (making companies or individuals adhere to the law of their origin country wherever they operate in the world) so that companies that are complicit in these acts– that undoubtedly end up with the end user being given more than warm hug by the Chinese government – are prevented from doing so? It applies in the arms trade to stop unscrupulous dealers from circumnavigating trade embargoes and in the information age, where knowledge can be just as potent a weapon, surely there should be some way of protecting a user’s rights?
In the US earlier this year Google defied a White House subpoena to hand over some of its search information, whilst interestingly Yahoo! caved under similar conditions. So there is at least some resistance out there, although I suspect it is more about competitive advantage than anything else.
Will the criticism really make a difference? I fear not. The truth is that the Chinese market is the last big opportunity for these companies to land grab and they will do anything they can to ensure that they pick up as many customers as possible. If that means cowtowing to the Chinese government, then so be it.
Friday, July 07, 2006
AOL's Advertising Advances
Interesting to see that AOL in the US is reportedly considering offering its online services for free to anyone with high-speed Internet access.
It is an open secret that AOL wants to transform its business into a more advertising led proposition and in a world where free email accounts such as Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail are offered by its closest rivals, the company is finally realising that charging for basic online services is not the best model.
Apparently charging for these services accounts for up to 80% of the company’s total revenues. Compare that to Google, which makes nearly 100% of its revenues from advertising and happily offers free email and storage services to users.
It would be a bold move for AOL to take this strategy and it could attract a lot more users that would in turn attract more advertisers, but the transition will have to be handled carefully with the Wall Street Journal predicting the move could cost it about $2bn in revenues.
The UK unit of AOL faces a similar problem. The ongoing sale discussions over its access business will leave it as an advertiser led concern with content at the fore, it will be interesting to see how it pans out both sides of the Atlantic.
It is an open secret that AOL wants to transform its business into a more advertising led proposition and in a world where free email accounts such as Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail are offered by its closest rivals, the company is finally realising that charging for basic online services is not the best model.
Apparently charging for these services accounts for up to 80% of the company’s total revenues. Compare that to Google, which makes nearly 100% of its revenues from advertising and happily offers free email and storage services to users.
It would be a bold move for AOL to take this strategy and it could attract a lot more users that would in turn attract more advertisers, but the transition will have to be handled carefully with the Wall Street Journal predicting the move could cost it about $2bn in revenues.
The UK unit of AOL faces a similar problem. The ongoing sale discussions over its access business will leave it as an advertiser led concern with content at the fore, it will be interesting to see how it pans out both sides of the Atlantic.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Down With the Kidz
The rise of social networking sites such as Bebo, Faceparty and MySpace seems to be getting everyone’s knickers in a twist recently.
Media reports have flagged up everything from bullying to paedophiles using the services and whilst conservatives are calling for stricter regulation of these sites, the UK Government has warned that regulation will only drive children onto unregulated sites.
So what is the answer?
At the end of the day you are not going to be able to shut down social network sites. They are not just sites; they are a social phenomenon that has been created by the advance of technology. If you shut down or heavily regulate sites like Bebo, Faceparty or MySpace then what is stop kids from simply creating their own sites and linking them together? What are you going to do then? Shut down every Web site that may pose a danger to kids? The Internet would become a very boring place indeed.
The answer obviously lies in identifying who is using the sites, but how do you do this?
Faceparty was recently rapped by the ASA for featuring ads on its site that were not suitable for kids. The site argued that you had to be over 16 to sign up, but the ASA countered that the age limit could not be verified and was useless as an argument, let alone a safety barrier.
Maybe the parent needs to take some responsibility here and the kid can only register through the parent – who can then be checked to ensure they are not a dangerous paedophile or the like.
But would this then make these sites uncool? Forcing kids to other unregulated sites?
It is a tough problem but you can be sure that before too long there will be another bad story involving kids use of these sites and then the News of the World et al will scream blue murder that nothing has been done already.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Viral Censorship
YouTube has signed a deal with American broadcaster NBC to put promotional clips of the network’s shows on its site.
This deal in itself is nothing remarkable – even if it does follow NBC’s rantings at YouTube to remove content from its service that ‘belonged’ to the network earlier this year.
Other brands have deals with YouTube and use its viral video distribution to promote events, services and products.
What is interesting is that as part of the deal YouTube will now remove, if asked, any NBC content uploaded onto the service that the network does not want to see out there.
YouTube is already very successful, allegedly has a bigger reach than MTV and has been hailed as the advertising medium of the future by Mark Tutssel, worldwide chief creative officer at the Leo Burnett ad agency.
It’s a shame that the viral nature of the service is now being influenced by the corporate giants. Yes remove offensive material, but editorial control on a viral site? That’s against what it stands for.
Speaking at the Cannes Advertising Festival Tutssel said that marketers must learn to let go of the control they think they have over their brand. Sadly YouTube has already given up control, but to the advertiser.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Making Friends
More social networking madness this week with the news that AOL is going to launch a MySpace-style social community Web site later this year.
The move is being taken as it looks to become an open content business and better compete against rivals MSN and Yahoo! and has been announced amidst a backdrop of speculation about who will buy AOL UK’s access business after it was put up for auction by its US owner earlier this month.
It may seem like a frivolous question, but these networks rely on advertising and advertisers will only want to pay for quality eyeballs, not just members who have signed in and never come back.
As for AOL, it needs to garner eyeballs quickly if it is going to remain as a content business in the
Friday, June 16, 2006
Read All About It - For Free
It's an interesting time in journalism at the moment with first The Guardian and then The Times saying that they want their journalists to write for the Web first and the newspaper second.
Also The Sun has launched a free classifieds Web site that is linked from its main online site in a bid to get more people to come to the portal.
A few years ago publishers were up in arms about content being given away for free online, now it seems that they are willingly giving it away instead of saving it for the pages of their esteemed publications.
What has changed? Simple – more people are online, more people are accessing news online and more people from oversees are accessing the pages of UK newspapers online.
Both the Guardian and The Times have a strong oversees readership online and that translates into better advertising revenues for them and so a fresh impetus to make their Web site content as good as possible. This comes at a time when newspaper readership is declining and beginning to harm print advertising revenues.
Does this mean that traditional newspapers are dead? Probably not yet, although I know quite a few people who don’t read as much offline as they used to, but there will always be a devoted offline following, the publishers will just have to use their brand more and rely on hard news stories less.
As for The Sun? It doesn’t really have a classifieds business anyway, so it is not harming itself, only sticking one in the eye to its competitors.
Also The Sun has launched a free classifieds Web site that is linked from its main online site in a bid to get more people to come to the portal.
A few years ago publishers were up in arms about content being given away for free online, now it seems that they are willingly giving it away instead of saving it for the pages of their esteemed publications.
What has changed? Simple – more people are online, more people are accessing news online and more people from oversees are accessing the pages of UK newspapers online.
Both the Guardian and The Times have a strong oversees readership online and that translates into better advertising revenues for them and so a fresh impetus to make their Web site content as good as possible. This comes at a time when newspaper readership is declining and beginning to harm print advertising revenues.
Does this mean that traditional newspapers are dead? Probably not yet, although I know quite a few people who don’t read as much offline as they used to, but there will always be a devoted offline following, the publishers will just have to use their brand more and rely on hard news stories less.
As for The Sun? It doesn’t really have a classifieds business anyway, so it is not harming itself, only sticking one in the eye to its competitors.
Monday, June 12, 2006
AOL UK the ISP, BT and BSkyB
AOL UK has put itself up for sale and is courting offers from interested parties.
BT and BSkyB are the two that have emerged in the press as leading the field and it promises to be another interesting twist in what is becoming an increasingly complicated UK broadband market.
AOL has decided that the impending price war between the ISPs – in their triple and quad play forms – is not its scene and is cashing in its UK business (which is thought to be profitable) as well as offloading its French and German operations.
I can’t see BT being allowed to buy out AOL as BT is top dog in the broadband market with 2.6m broadband customers and AOL is third with 2.2m customers, 1.3m of whom are broadband customers. So unless someone else comes in with a better offer Murdoch’s empire will roll on and BSkyB will become the third largest ISP in the UK.
The broadcaster is set to launch its full – and probably ‘free’ – broadband offering later this summer after buying Easynet for £211m last year and the addition of the AOL business would sit nicely with its satellite TV services, especially as other players such as BT move into on demand broadband TV services.
The consumer will probably win price-wise, but working out what is the best deal may become increasingly difficult when having to factor in mobile charges, broadband services, Pay TV services and fixed line services.
Communicationssupermarket.com won’t be far away I reckon.
BT and BSkyB are the two that have emerged in the press as leading the field and it promises to be another interesting twist in what is becoming an increasingly complicated UK broadband market.
AOL has decided that the impending price war between the ISPs – in their triple and quad play forms – is not its scene and is cashing in its UK business (which is thought to be profitable) as well as offloading its French and German operations.
I can’t see BT being allowed to buy out AOL as BT is top dog in the broadband market with 2.6m broadband customers and AOL is third with 2.2m customers, 1.3m of whom are broadband customers. So unless someone else comes in with a better offer Murdoch’s empire will roll on and BSkyB will become the third largest ISP in the UK.
The broadcaster is set to launch its full – and probably ‘free’ – broadband offering later this summer after buying Easynet for £211m last year and the addition of the AOL business would sit nicely with its satellite TV services, especially as other players such as BT move into on demand broadband TV services.
The consumer will probably win price-wise, but working out what is the best deal may become increasingly difficult when having to factor in mobile charges, broadband services, Pay TV services and fixed line services.
Communicationssupermarket.com won’t be far away I reckon.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Eye On The Ball
Everyone else is running World Cup stories, so I thought I would have one on my blog too.
The BBC has announced that it is going to show live footage on its Web site of all the games it is screening from the World Cup in Germnay this summer.
Am I the only one who thinks that this is a strange state of affairs?
In 2001 Yahoo! signed up as an official sponsor to: 'provide FIFA with its many services and innovations in the various Internet sectors, up to and including the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ in Germany'.
Yet despite this agreement it is the BBC that will be showing the games live online and not Yahoo!
There are a couple of questions here about the rights.
Firstly, has this situation come about as the online live rights for the World Cup are tied up with the broadcast package? - If so then why aren't ITV offering a similar service. Secondly, why the hell didn't Yahoo! have the foresight to insist that any games shown live online would be their domain.
New media is fast paced, but this seems like a real clanger, especially as neither the official FifaWorldCup Web site nor the Yahoo! portal will be showing games live.
If I were Yahoo! I would be asking some serious questions.
The BBC has announced that it is going to show live footage on its Web site of all the games it is screening from the World Cup in Germnay this summer.
Am I the only one who thinks that this is a strange state of affairs?
In 2001 Yahoo! signed up as an official sponsor to: 'provide FIFA with its many services and innovations in the various Internet sectors, up to and including the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ in Germany'.
Yet despite this agreement it is the BBC that will be showing the games live online and not Yahoo!
There are a couple of questions here about the rights.
Firstly, has this situation come about as the online live rights for the World Cup are tied up with the broadcast package? - If so then why aren't ITV offering a similar service. Secondly, why the hell didn't Yahoo! have the foresight to insist that any games shown live online would be their domain.
New media is fast paced, but this seems like a real clanger, especially as neither the official FifaWorldCup Web site nor the Yahoo! portal will be showing games live.
If I were Yahoo! I would be asking some serious questions.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
The Future's Bright
Next week looks as if it is shaping up to be broadband week with both Orange and Vodafone expected to announce their strategies in the forthcoming converged services market.
With Carphone Warehouse already offering ‘free’ broadband through TalkTalk – a claim that is continuing to attract complaints from the public and rivals to the ASA – both Orange, who will gain full broadband services after merging fully with Wanadoo next week, and Vodafone, who are hotly tipped to buy an ISP soon to offer services, want to get in on the act.
The converged services market is shaping up to be more confusing than getting a new mobile contract – trying to work out your best deal usually requires a maths degree and a lot of patience – and each player will be offering a combination of discounts set against other parts of its business.
But who will emerge victorious? BT has a strong hold on the broadband market and so could, theoretically, manoeuvre this into the converged services market with a mobile play, but BT Fusion is not proving very popular. Vodafone has a great brand in mobile, but no broadband heritage at all and will have to move fast and pay big to bring some in.
Orange is without a doubt the best placed. It has a good mobile brand and with the backing of France Telecom and a £130m marketing campaign to rebrand Wanadoo as Orange next week, will be making a big impact on the market from the start of converged services.
With Carphone Warehouse already offering ‘free’ broadband through TalkTalk – a claim that is continuing to attract complaints from the public and rivals to the ASA – both Orange, who will gain full broadband services after merging fully with Wanadoo next week, and Vodafone, who are hotly tipped to buy an ISP soon to offer services, want to get in on the act.
The converged services market is shaping up to be more confusing than getting a new mobile contract – trying to work out your best deal usually requires a maths degree and a lot of patience – and each player will be offering a combination of discounts set against other parts of its business.
But who will emerge victorious? BT has a strong hold on the broadband market and so could, theoretically, manoeuvre this into the converged services market with a mobile play, but BT Fusion is not proving very popular. Vodafone has a great brand in mobile, but no broadband heritage at all and will have to move fast and pay big to bring some in.
Orange is without a doubt the best placed. It has a good mobile brand and with the backing of France Telecom and a £130m marketing campaign to rebrand Wanadoo as Orange next week, will be making a big impact on the market from the start of converged services.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
MTV Gets The Urge
MTV is setting out its stall to try and reclaim its music territory that has been land-grabbed in the past few years by Apple.
It’s launching ‘Urge’ as its new music download service offering users 2 million songs that can be bought either separately for $0.99 (£0.53) or via a monthly subscription. Urge will also be the featured music player on Microsoft's Media Player and will be compatible with more than 100 digital music players but not iPods.
Van Toffler, president of MTV Networks Music Group actually said: "We will concentrate on people who don't have iPods. Hopefully, through the TV channels we have and the dot-com sites...we can educate people about the virtues of subscriptions. It's not about selling a million singles.”
MTV, credited with giving rise to a generation of music loving teenagers and being the driving force behind popular culture in 90s America, has since lost its way because it has not embraced the changing nature of media consumption. The fact that a computer company such as Apple has managed to do this must be infuriating for MTV suits.
Someone told me the other day that YouTube has a greater reach in the US than MTV. That is the perfect example of how MTV has missed the boat, by being too slow to adapt to the changing market.
The YouTube model is simple yet effective; it is a media company that relies on interaction from its audience. That sounds remarkably similar to MTV in many ways and yet MTV is only now embracing music downloads as a medium in a meaningful way and cannot match YouTube for the amount of music video clips that are being posted and viewed. Music download is not a new phenomenon and there were plenty of signs it would take off even before it was introduced as a legal business, but still it has taken MTV until now to launch a service that fits so centrally with its brand.
To be fair to MTV, it is far from the channel that launched in 1981 with the exclamation "Ladies and gentlemen, rock and roll!" But even taking into account the size of the Viacom owned company now it is a surprise that it has not reacted more quickly to a changing media environment.
What will be interesting to see now is how much of its coolness is still left? Does MTV still resonate with the youth of today, or are YouTube and the iPod their idols now?
It’s launching ‘Urge’ as its new music download service offering users 2 million songs that can be bought either separately for $0.99 (£0.53) or via a monthly subscription. Urge will also be the featured music player on Microsoft's Media Player and will be compatible with more than 100 digital music players but not iPods.
Van Toffler, president of MTV Networks Music Group actually said: "We will concentrate on people who don't have iPods. Hopefully, through the TV channels we have and the dot-com sites...we can educate people about the virtues of subscriptions. It's not about selling a million singles.”
MTV, credited with giving rise to a generation of music loving teenagers and being the driving force behind popular culture in 90s America, has since lost its way because it has not embraced the changing nature of media consumption. The fact that a computer company such as Apple has managed to do this must be infuriating for MTV suits.
Someone told me the other day that YouTube has a greater reach in the US than MTV. That is the perfect example of how MTV has missed the boat, by being too slow to adapt to the changing market.
The YouTube model is simple yet effective; it is a media company that relies on interaction from its audience. That sounds remarkably similar to MTV in many ways and yet MTV is only now embracing music downloads as a medium in a meaningful way and cannot match YouTube for the amount of music video clips that are being posted and viewed. Music download is not a new phenomenon and there were plenty of signs it would take off even before it was introduced as a legal business, but still it has taken MTV until now to launch a service that fits so centrally with its brand.
To be fair to MTV, it is far from the channel that launched in 1981 with the exclamation "Ladies and gentlemen, rock and roll!" But even taking into account the size of the Viacom owned company now it is a surprise that it has not reacted more quickly to a changing media environment.
What will be interesting to see now is how much of its coolness is still left? Does MTV still resonate with the youth of today, or are YouTube and the iPod their idols now?
Monday, May 15, 2006
The Geeks Will Inherit The Earth
Last week Internet search giant Google’s chief executive Eric Schmidt told the BBC that staying quiet about its operations was no longer an option.
"We are doing too many things that people care about to keep our mouths shut," Schmidt said. "We have to tell people what we are working on so they can anticipate where we're going."
Anyone who works in the press and has dealt with Google will find this highly amusing, but nonetheless Google invited the world's media to Googleplex headquarters in California to talk about new developments.
Mr Schmidt said he believed that competition in the Internet search business, especially from Microsoft and Yahoo! would drive up prices and increase revenue rather than threaten them and that Google appeared to be benefiting from its ‘limitless growth model’, with profits in the first three months of 2006 up 60% to $592m (£333m), from $372m a year ago.
Mr Schmidt is undoubtedly a very smart man, and Google is making vast amounts of cash, but anyone claiming to have a ‘limitless growth model’ needs to have their head read, or at least sit down for a while.
Those of us that went through the late nineties and early noughties saw first hand the pride that come before a fall when terms such as ‘limitless growth’ and ‘exponential’ are bandied around.
Google should take a look at how Microsoft has been treated in its rise to dominance in the computing world; Anti-trust cases await Google, you can count on that.
But on the upside for Google, it has made a great start in the time that it has taken for its competitors to catch up. Schmidt is right again to identify Yahoo! and MSN as its main competitors, but it will be MSN’s relationship with Microsoft that will be the real battle for Google. It will be interesting to see how ‘limitless’ its growth is when it comes face to face with Microsoft on a more regular basis in search and advertising circles, as Microsoft sets out its stall to be a major player in both.
"We are doing too many things that people care about to keep our mouths shut," Schmidt said. "We have to tell people what we are working on so they can anticipate where we're going."
Anyone who works in the press and has dealt with Google will find this highly amusing, but nonetheless Google invited the world's media to Googleplex headquarters in California to talk about new developments.
Mr Schmidt said he believed that competition in the Internet search business, especially from Microsoft and Yahoo! would drive up prices and increase revenue rather than threaten them and that Google appeared to be benefiting from its ‘limitless growth model’, with profits in the first three months of 2006 up 60% to $592m (£333m), from $372m a year ago.
Mr Schmidt is undoubtedly a very smart man, and Google is making vast amounts of cash, but anyone claiming to have a ‘limitless growth model’ needs to have their head read, or at least sit down for a while.
Those of us that went through the late nineties and early noughties saw first hand the pride that come before a fall when terms such as ‘limitless growth’ and ‘exponential’ are bandied around.
Google should take a look at how Microsoft has been treated in its rise to dominance in the computing world; Anti-trust cases await Google, you can count on that.
But on the upside for Google, it has made a great start in the time that it has taken for its competitors to catch up. Schmidt is right again to identify Yahoo! and MSN as its main competitors, but it will be MSN’s relationship with Microsoft that will be the real battle for Google. It will be interesting to see how ‘limitless’ its growth is when it comes face to face with Microsoft on a more regular basis in search and advertising circles, as Microsoft sets out its stall to be a major player in both.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Search Wars Part III - Revenge of the Portals
Yahoo! has fired the latest salvo in the search marketing wars with the announcement of the Q3 launch of a new search marketing platform in the UK.
The new service, like that announced by MSN last week has enhanced targeting capabilities allowing advertisers to use Yahoo!’s WhereonEarth technology to target and match users to content. Google announced a demographic enhancement to its service in April.
Other new features include added campaign testing and evaluation tools as well as a goal based optimisation service that Yahoo! says will allow you to control campaigns based on goals such as cost per acquisition.
Stephen Taylor, Regional Vice President - Yahoo! Search said that the move was all about ‘putting the advertiser in control of the medium’.
This is the way that the whole industry is moving in the UK and globally. MSN adCenter is designed to be very agency and advertiser friendly and SEM’s have commented that MSN have been a ‘breath of fresh air’ in their approach to the market. Yahoo! like MSN is also looking beyond the traditional paid search market, with Taylor identifying ‘huge opportunity’ in how it will work with graphical media, mobile, IPTV and with enhanced geo-targeting.
Both Yahoo! and MSN have strong audiences and will both be exploiting advertising across all aspects of their networks, MSN across properties including Windows Live and Xbox and Yahoo! with a social search focus using its properties including Flickr.
Google does not have the audience that both Yahoo! and MSN have. Sure, it is a first stop for most Web users when they search online, but it is a conduit to get somewhere else.
Whether advertisers remain thinking that the value is in the delivery of traffic, or whether this will evolve into how they interact with the traffic, will have a large bearing on who comes out on top in the search wars.
The new service, like that announced by MSN last week has enhanced targeting capabilities allowing advertisers to use Yahoo!’s WhereonEarth technology to target and match users to content. Google announced a demographic enhancement to its service in April.
Other new features include added campaign testing and evaluation tools as well as a goal based optimisation service that Yahoo! says will allow you to control campaigns based on goals such as cost per acquisition.
Stephen Taylor, Regional Vice President - Yahoo! Search said that the move was all about ‘putting the advertiser in control of the medium’.
This is the way that the whole industry is moving in the UK and globally. MSN adCenter is designed to be very agency and advertiser friendly and SEM’s have commented that MSN have been a ‘breath of fresh air’ in their approach to the market. Yahoo! like MSN is also looking beyond the traditional paid search market, with Taylor identifying ‘huge opportunity’ in how it will work with graphical media, mobile, IPTV and with enhanced geo-targeting.
Both Yahoo! and MSN have strong audiences and will both be exploiting advertising across all aspects of their networks, MSN across properties including Windows Live and Xbox and Yahoo! with a social search focus using its properties including Flickr.
Google does not have the audience that both Yahoo! and MSN have. Sure, it is a first stop for most Web users when they search online, but it is a conduit to get somewhere else.
Whether advertisers remain thinking that the value is in the delivery of traffic, or whether this will evolve into how they interact with the traffic, will have a large bearing on who comes out on top in the search wars.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Search Shenanigans
MSN today announced that it would begin testing its online marketing adCenter product in the UK in June with a full rollout expected later in the year.
The UK market has been waiting for this date for a year, ever since MSN announced at the launch of the service in the US at its 6th Annual Strategic Account Summit in March 2005.
The service is billed as the advertising engine for Windows Live, MSN and other Microsoft online services including Xbox.com and Xbox Live connected gaming. It has already been used in the US by DoubleClick’s performance based marketing division.
But what will it actually mean for the industry?
The UK market has been reliant on Google, Yahoo! and MIVA for its search marketing needs for the last few years and MSN was conspicuous by its absence. Today’s announcement may herald a new dawn for advertisers and search agencies in the UK, offering a genuine fourth alternative.
However, there are a number of questions that adCenter must answer before it is hailed as a success in the UK.
Firstly, Google has a massive head start over MSN in terms of users on its search service.
Secondly, Yahoo! can compete as portal for eyeballs in the UK, so there is no guarantee that the new adCenter will attract more business to the MSN portal. Add AOL to that point as well.
Thirdly, and although it is nauseating, Google constantly reminds everyone that they are in this game for the users, to give them the most relevant results, whereas the MSN play – if an initial glance of the offering is correct – seems to lean towards the advertiser, with the promise of being able to deliver ads to different demographics, rather than purely on keyword searches. So in theory the user does not get the most relevant results, just the most relevant ones for the advertiser.
Lastly – well for this list as it could go on for a while –will MSN offer a 15% agency discount when adCenter is introduced? A move that would be the opposite of that taken by both Yahoo! and Google, which removed the discounts in favour of other systems. Would seem suicide so will have to wait and see.
MSN will have to answer these questions and more if it is to wrestle control of the UK PPC market from Google and Yahoo! and MIVA, its going to be an interesting summer for search marketers.
The UK market has been waiting for this date for a year, ever since MSN announced at the launch of the service in the US at its 6th Annual Strategic Account Summit in March 2005.
The service is billed as the advertising engine for Windows Live, MSN and other Microsoft online services including Xbox.com and Xbox Live connected gaming. It has already been used in the US by DoubleClick’s performance based marketing division.
But what will it actually mean for the industry?
The UK market has been reliant on Google, Yahoo! and MIVA for its search marketing needs for the last few years and MSN was conspicuous by its absence. Today’s announcement may herald a new dawn for advertisers and search agencies in the UK, offering a genuine fourth alternative.
However, there are a number of questions that adCenter must answer before it is hailed as a success in the UK.
Firstly, Google has a massive head start over MSN in terms of users on its search service.
Secondly, Yahoo! can compete as portal for eyeballs in the UK, so there is no guarantee that the new adCenter will attract more business to the MSN portal. Add AOL to that point as well.
Thirdly, and although it is nauseating, Google constantly reminds everyone that they are in this game for the users, to give them the most relevant results, whereas the MSN play – if an initial glance of the offering is correct – seems to lean towards the advertiser, with the promise of being able to deliver ads to different demographics, rather than purely on keyword searches. So in theory the user does not get the most relevant results, just the most relevant ones for the advertiser.
Lastly – well for this list as it could go on for a while –will MSN offer a 15% agency discount when adCenter is introduced? A move that would be the opposite of that taken by both Yahoo! and Google, which removed the discounts in favour of other systems. Would seem suicide so will have to wait and see.
MSN will have to answer these questions and more if it is to wrestle control of the UK PPC market from Google and Yahoo! and MIVA, its going to be an interesting summer for search marketers.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Dollar Downloads and Musical Mischief
Today’s news is that Apple has resigned contracts with the major music labels – Universal, Warner Music, EMI and Sony BMG – to sell their songs online at a fixed price of 79p in the UK and 99 cents in the US.
The BBC spins this as Apple ‘winning’ and focuses on the fact that the music companies have been fighting for months to try and charge higher prices for new releases.
I think there are a couple of bigger issues here.
Firstly, have the music labels not faced enough erosion into their profits to understand that the days of charging £20 for an album are gone? People no longer see such high prices as acceptable in the digital age and rather than charging the consumer more money for songs in a different format, shouldn’t the record labels be looking for a new model that will sustain their position for the future?
Secondly, why does the UK pay more for downloads than the US? A flat price at the US level would see the UK paying about 55p per download, not 79p. This is nothing more than protecting profits in the market and with the popularity of iTunes that is basically price fixing.
In the US the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, has launched a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that record labels are fixing the prices of music downloads. In Europe Microsoft has faced numerous anti-trust cases from the EU over its dominance.
How long will it be before we see the EU take a stand over the same issues with Apple and the record labels? And what will that mean for the future of record companies?
Will future number 1s come exclusively from the likes of the Arctic Monkeys and Gnarls Barkley (and their record labels) who have worked out how to use the potential of online for generating interest and sales, rather than ripping off consumers over price?
The BBC spins this as Apple ‘winning’ and focuses on the fact that the music companies have been fighting for months to try and charge higher prices for new releases.
I think there are a couple of bigger issues here.
Firstly, have the music labels not faced enough erosion into their profits to understand that the days of charging £20 for an album are gone? People no longer see such high prices as acceptable in the digital age and rather than charging the consumer more money for songs in a different format, shouldn’t the record labels be looking for a new model that will sustain their position for the future?
Secondly, why does the UK pay more for downloads than the US? A flat price at the US level would see the UK paying about 55p per download, not 79p. This is nothing more than protecting profits in the market and with the popularity of iTunes that is basically price fixing.
In the US the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, has launched a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that record labels are fixing the prices of music downloads. In Europe Microsoft has faced numerous anti-trust cases from the EU over its dominance.
How long will it be before we see the EU take a stand over the same issues with Apple and the record labels? And what will that mean for the future of record companies?
Will future number 1s come exclusively from the likes of the Arctic Monkeys and Gnarls Barkley (and their record labels) who have worked out how to use the potential of online for generating interest and sales, rather than ripping off consumers over price?
Monday, April 24, 2006
MySpace, YourSpace, OurSpace, TheirSpace
Rupert Murdoch gave a speech to the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers last month in which he said that the days of the old media baron were numbered.
He said: "A new generation of media consumers has risen demanding content delivered when they want it, how they want it, and very much as they want it."
Fine words from a 75 year old. And Murdoch has put his money where his mouth is with News Corp investing almost $1bn in online and $400m on MySpace.com alone.
Murdoch may be right, the old media baron's days may be numbered as media consumption habits change, but the acquisition of MySpace and the stories being associated with it now do not indicate that 'old media barons' know anything about online yet.
It has been revealed that Coca-Cola is aiming to tap into youth culture with a series of viral ads that will be distributed via social networking Web sites such as MySpace.com. Stories have also been circulating about tie-ups with other News Corp assets in the UK ahead of the launch of the UK front end of MySpace, including tie-ups with The Sun – all of which have been denied.
News Corp needs MySpace to start paying its way. If there is anything I can tell you about publishing it is that proprietors do not like loss makers. But trying to attract advertisers to MySpace will defeat the object of the community in the first place.
MySpace is an anti-portal, an environment that lends itself to free expression and the original ethos of the Web, open communication. For starters this is not the usual environment that brands enjoy online and secondly the users will simply move on if it becomes a branded world. Other models mooted include adding e-commerce, again a turkey in my opinion as it is against the natural ethos of the community.
In response to the problem of disparate online assets News Corp began creating last year Fox Interactive Media, an overarching online play, which will hopefully for Murdoch bring together all of his Internet investments and make them pay off.
The problem is that the more you try and commercialise MySpace, the more you damage what you have bought in the first place, a community. It’s a unique problem for Murdoch and anyone else who has invested in social networks in the hope of capitalising on the phenomenon and as yet I have not seen a model that I think works. All Murdoch may end up with in the end is a very expensive promoter of his TV programmes.
He said: "A new generation of media consumers has risen demanding content delivered when they want it, how they want it, and very much as they want it."
Fine words from a 75 year old. And Murdoch has put his money where his mouth is with News Corp investing almost $1bn in online and $400m on MySpace.com alone.
Murdoch may be right, the old media baron's days may be numbered as media consumption habits change, but the acquisition of MySpace and the stories being associated with it now do not indicate that 'old media barons' know anything about online yet.
It has been revealed that Coca-Cola is aiming to tap into youth culture with a series of viral ads that will be distributed via social networking Web sites such as MySpace.com. Stories have also been circulating about tie-ups with other News Corp assets in the UK ahead of the launch of the UK front end of MySpace, including tie-ups with The Sun – all of which have been denied.
News Corp needs MySpace to start paying its way. If there is anything I can tell you about publishing it is that proprietors do not like loss makers. But trying to attract advertisers to MySpace will defeat the object of the community in the first place.
MySpace is an anti-portal, an environment that lends itself to free expression and the original ethos of the Web, open communication. For starters this is not the usual environment that brands enjoy online and secondly the users will simply move on if it becomes a branded world. Other models mooted include adding e-commerce, again a turkey in my opinion as it is against the natural ethos of the community.
In response to the problem of disparate online assets News Corp began creating last year Fox Interactive Media, an overarching online play, which will hopefully for Murdoch bring together all of his Internet investments and make them pay off.
The problem is that the more you try and commercialise MySpace, the more you damage what you have bought in the first place, a community. It’s a unique problem for Murdoch and anyone else who has invested in social networks in the hope of capitalising on the phenomenon and as yet I have not seen a model that I think works. All Murdoch may end up with in the end is a very expensive promoter of his TV programmes.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Who has the Rights?
Interesting story on the Guardian Web site today saying that mobile phone operators are now cooling on the idea of shelling out millions for exclusive rights to show Premier League football highlights.
It is an interesting problem for the Premier League and other rights holders as they seek to exploit rights in a world where technology is outpacing selling models.
Bob Fuller, chief executive of 3, is quoted saying that 3 will look at buying up the next rights package when it comes up, but says that he thinks that exclusivity is not worth paying lots of money for anymore.
His argument is sound. A few years ago when 3 launched and video on mobile was still in its infancy, paying for exclusive rights to Premier league highlights packages could be used as a carrot to get people on the network. Now, in the age where mobile TV is available for a few and is rapidly become a reality for all, paying millions for a hived off 'mobile only' package of rights does not make sense, especially if you then add in the convergence of delivery companies with triple and quad plays being launched into the market that will abe able to offer better content packages.
Interestingly mobile entertainment company Rok announced a few weeks ago that it had developed something it was calling the Rok Black Box (BLCX for short), a device that plugs into the TV, encodes and compresses the signal, delivers it across broadband to the Web and can then be acessed via 2.5G mobile using a Java application and viewed at 24 frames a second.
The BLCX (apparenlty standing for Bollocks to the networks) is not yet commercially available but is planned for a roll-out before the World Cup this summer. T-Mobile paid a vast sum of cash (£20m?) for the exclusive UK rights to bundled World Cup highlights packages, charging users for access for each view. The BLCX, if it works, will allow you to watch whatever you would normally receive on your TV - Sky, Cable of Freeview - for nothing more than the data charge on your phone, or for free if you happen to be in a Wi-Fi hotpost.
With technology like this and the rapid emergence of mobile TV, rights holders are going to have to re-think how they package and sell their rights.
It is an interesting problem for the Premier League and other rights holders as they seek to exploit rights in a world where technology is outpacing selling models.
Bob Fuller, chief executive of 3, is quoted saying that 3 will look at buying up the next rights package when it comes up, but says that he thinks that exclusivity is not worth paying lots of money for anymore.
His argument is sound. A few years ago when 3 launched and video on mobile was still in its infancy, paying for exclusive rights to Premier league highlights packages could be used as a carrot to get people on the network. Now, in the age where mobile TV is available for a few and is rapidly become a reality for all, paying millions for a hived off 'mobile only' package of rights does not make sense, especially if you then add in the convergence of delivery companies with triple and quad plays being launched into the market that will abe able to offer better content packages.
Interestingly mobile entertainment company Rok announced a few weeks ago that it had developed something it was calling the Rok Black Box (BLCX for short), a device that plugs into the TV, encodes and compresses the signal, delivers it across broadband to the Web and can then be acessed via 2.5G mobile using a Java application and viewed at 24 frames a second.
The BLCX (apparenlty standing for Bollocks to the networks) is not yet commercially available but is planned for a roll-out before the World Cup this summer. T-Mobile paid a vast sum of cash (£20m?) for the exclusive UK rights to bundled World Cup highlights packages, charging users for access for each view. The BLCX, if it works, will allow you to watch whatever you would normally receive on your TV - Sky, Cable of Freeview - for nothing more than the data charge on your phone, or for free if you happen to be in a Wi-Fi hotpost.
With technology like this and the rapid emergence of mobile TV, rights holders are going to have to re-think how they package and sell their rights.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Brussels Medling
Interesting story in The Times today. It seems that Brussels wants to start regulating video content on the Internet, including video blogs.
It is updating the 17-year-old Television Without Frontiers Directive and is including for the first time rules to govern “non-linear audio visual services” — video on demand and Internet broadcasting and as part of this, larger blogs.
This has prompted OfCOM, the UK media regulator, to say that the Commission’s plans are misguided. OfCOM, to give it credit – as many people just like to bash it – sees that this is a complete minefield for both the Commission and itself.
Regulation of the Internet by any organisation is seen as Big Brother style interference and in the past OfCOM has been quick to distance itself from any indication that it would take this path. Only last month it denied it was to regulate content online governing the advertising of junk food to kids and has always maintained that self-regulation is the best way forward when it comes to online media. Whether this is a kop out, a sensible approach or an admission that it simply does not have the manpower or teeth to enforced any such laws is up for debate (I am betting the latter of the three), but Brussels seems set to test the water.
Efforts are being made by James Purnell, the Broadcasting Minister to get other nations to join him in trying to change the directive, but at present the Commission is on a collision course with bloggers everywhere, although given its track record at implementing rules such as these it will no doubt come to nothing when they realise that their proposals are totally unworkable.
It is updating the 17-year-old Television Without Frontiers Directive and is including for the first time rules to govern “non-linear audio visual services” — video on demand and Internet broadcasting and as part of this, larger blogs.
This has prompted OfCOM, the UK media regulator, to say that the Commission’s plans are misguided. OfCOM, to give it credit – as many people just like to bash it – sees that this is a complete minefield for both the Commission and itself.
Regulation of the Internet by any organisation is seen as Big Brother style interference and in the past OfCOM has been quick to distance itself from any indication that it would take this path. Only last month it denied it was to regulate content online governing the advertising of junk food to kids and has always maintained that self-regulation is the best way forward when it comes to online media. Whether this is a kop out, a sensible approach or an admission that it simply does not have the manpower or teeth to enforced any such laws is up for debate (I am betting the latter of the three), but Brussels seems set to test the water.
Efforts are being made by James Purnell, the Broadcasting Minister to get other nations to join him in trying to change the directive, but at present the Commission is on a collision course with bloggers everywhere, although given its track record at implementing rules such as these it will no doubt come to nothing when they realise that their proposals are totally unworkable.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Credit to PayPal
eBay owned PayPal is launching a credit card in the UK through a tie up with GE Money. It has already launched one in the US and is planning to offer 100,000 of its British account holders the card first later this month.
The card itself is unremarkable, as is a deal to offer a card with an affinity brand, but whilst cards with brands such as football clubs make sense, tapping into the fan loyalty, a card with PayPal seems a bit weird.
The card itself offers the usual type of thing - 12.9% APR with 0% interest on balance transfers for the first six months – but the sting may be in the tail in this deal as PayPal has said that the card is the first of a number of financial services it plans to offer in the future, leaving plenty of room for speculation.
Obvious tie-ups will be to get people to use the cards on eBay, but other tie-ups could see benefits for PayPal customers when used for other online transactions and it could even be part of a wider move by PayPal to move into the traditional market as Visa and Mastercard move online with their respective plays Verified by Visa and Mastercard SecureCode.
Secure online payment is a big component in the growing popularity of e-commerce, moving into the mainstream with a credit card may convince those who are not digital at heart that PayPal is as safe an option as Visa or Mastercard.
The card itself is unremarkable, as is a deal to offer a card with an affinity brand, but whilst cards with brands such as football clubs make sense, tapping into the fan loyalty, a card with PayPal seems a bit weird.
The card itself offers the usual type of thing - 12.9% APR with 0% interest on balance transfers for the first six months – but the sting may be in the tail in this deal as PayPal has said that the card is the first of a number of financial services it plans to offer in the future, leaving plenty of room for speculation.
Obvious tie-ups will be to get people to use the cards on eBay, but other tie-ups could see benefits for PayPal customers when used for other online transactions and it could even be part of a wider move by PayPal to move into the traditional market as Visa and Mastercard move online with their respective plays Verified by Visa and Mastercard SecureCode.
Secure online payment is a big component in the growing popularity of e-commerce, moving into the mainstream with a credit card may convince those who are not digital at heart that PayPal is as safe an option as Visa or Mastercard.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Content Still King
So Carphone Warehouse is opening up the UK broadband market, offering 8MB connections free when you sign up to its international calling plans. This may look great on the surface and it will probably mean that consumers get the benefit of a price war in the short term, but the longer game won’t be about fixed line and broadband, it will be about broadband, fixed line and TV and video content.
Wanadoo will probably be looking with caution at what is happening, even after they combine with Orange in the UK they may struggle as they do not have significant fixed line capability and do not have a content play.
It is doubtful BT will be worried about the announcement from Charles Dunstone this morning as although they are firm competitors with Carphone in the fixed line and broadband services market, they are building up to offer BT Vision, their own TV on demand service over broadband later in the year – which will be free to BT Broadband subscribers - and their dominant market position in fixed line would suggest they won’t worry too much.
Likewise Sky, which is set to offer broadband later this summer after buying Easynet last year, has a dominant market position from the TV side and will no doubt aggressively sell into its own subscriber base.
Finally NTL / Telewest, the cable giant should also not worry as it has fixed line, broadband, cable and on demand TV services and is also ready to add mobile through Virgin to the fold.
Free broadband may be Queen for the day, but content is still King.
Wanadoo will probably be looking with caution at what is happening, even after they combine with Orange in the UK they may struggle as they do not have significant fixed line capability and do not have a content play.
It is doubtful BT will be worried about the announcement from Charles Dunstone this morning as although they are firm competitors with Carphone in the fixed line and broadband services market, they are building up to offer BT Vision, their own TV on demand service over broadband later in the year – which will be free to BT Broadband subscribers - and their dominant market position in fixed line would suggest they won’t worry too much.
Likewise Sky, which is set to offer broadband later this summer after buying Easynet last year, has a dominant market position from the TV side and will no doubt aggressively sell into its own subscriber base.
Finally NTL / Telewest, the cable giant should also not worry as it has fixed line, broadband, cable and on demand TV services and is also ready to add mobile through Virgin to the fold.
Free broadband may be Queen for the day, but content is still King.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Welcome!
This is my first post. Welcome to The Interactive Zone. It's only a baby but soon it will be jampacked full of the latest media, marketing and business stories. Watch out for the latest trends and ideas appearing here soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)